Re: [gentoo-user] revdep-rebuild vs. @preserved-rebuild

Jes=C3=BAs Guerrero writes:
> Thanks for the feedback. However there's one thing I can't understand:
> whether the libraries are kept of removed is decided at the merge time,
> isn't it? So, whatever breaks, breaks when using "emerge" to update the
> offending library, the one that will break the ABI. So, how can using a
> tool *after that* have any impact over what's broken? It can fix the
> problem, but so can revdep-rebuild.
>
> I mean: if the old libs with the old abi's are kept, how it is relevant if
> you are using @preserved-rebuild, revdep-rebuild or another method, or no=
ne
> at all? Your programs will continue to work ok without needing to rebuild
> anything, won't them? And after rebuilding the package it's irrelevant
> *how* did you rebuild them... I must obviously be missing something here,
> if you have the time please, direct me to an adequate source of informati=
on
> or explain a bit, I am curious.
The difference is that with the new @preserved-rebuild the 'old' library
is not deleted until all of the dependent packages have been
successfully rebuilt to use the 'new' library. With the old
revdep-rebuild mechanism, the 'old' library was deleted during the
upgrade emerge. Therefore after the new library was merged, packages
which depended on the old library could not be run[1] until these
dependent packages were rebuilt to use the new library.
[1] Though any which were running at the time the new library was merged
would continue to run.=20